When does drinking turn to sin

[EasterJoy]

Dear Easterjoy and Mea Culpa,

As a former smoker and the grateful recipient of God’s miraculous healing, I agree that smoking is a much more serious matter than it was 30years ago. I started in 1972 at the age of twenty, even then I knew ciggarettes were not good for you. Idiocy of youth I think qualifies as a mitigating circumstance, as well as the addictive nature of nicotine and the habitual aspect of smoking. Becoming aware of the increasing seriousness of smoking’s bad effects did nothing to help me quit. I desired to quit for years before God’s miracle. I prayed for God to take smoking away from me because I was helpless to quit myself.

I’ve been delivered from slavery for 9 months and 25 days and 5 hours. There are things that are virtualy impossible to escape from on our own. Drinking is another one of those things as well. I was freed from that at the same time as well.

Anyway, I’m sorry to go on like this when I simply wanted to say that you both seem to come off a little too harsh with the Mortal sin business. Maybe I’m just being too sensitive.
Love and Peace in Christ,
Tom

I didn’t mean to come off as harsh or judgmental, and I’m sorry for that. It is the seriousness of the activity that I meant to weigh in on.

It is my belief that the vast majority of smokers whose smoking has reached a grave level of self-destruction are enslaved to habit, whether they believe themselves to be or not. So the idea that smoking could be a mortal sin is theoretical in most cases.

What has changed is the degree to which a smoker should be aware that consistent smoking is gravely damaging. There was a time when knowledge of the damage being done, both to yourself and anyone that you put in harm’s way, would have been mitigating. It would take a lot of denial to believe that now.

PS In the interest of full disclosure, my sins (along these lines) are those of over-consumption and neglect to exercise. If done consistently enough and to a sufficiently serious level, that could kill a person, too. Tsk, tsk on me! :tsktsk:

 

[EasterJoy]

I think that smoking a cheap cigar is a sin.

I was taught that cooking with either very good or very poor liquor was sinful, but nobody attached a gravity to it. I think that cooking with what I could afford would only be venial.

 

[Alverno]

I was taught that cooking with either very good or very poor liquor was sinful, but nobody attached a gravity to it. I think that cooking with what I could afford would only be venial.

Whatever it was if it was good and we ate it I’m sure it would add to our gravity!

 

[EasterJoy]

Whatever it was if it was good and we ate it I’m sure it would add to our gravity!

No kidding!

 

[down_under]

Well, the CCC may very well be speaking of driving drunk in #2290, which of course I too believe to be a serious sin. Setting that aside for a moment, what about Gal 5:19-21 and/or Col 6:9-10? Paul certainly appears to be lumping drunkenness in with other sins considered to be mortal. God bless.

I think you getting at the heart of it now. having a beer after work is porbably not a problem. having a glass of X with dinner or with the guys is probably not a problem either. but when you open the bottle with the intent of drinking till you can’t see straight. when you get tipsy and start in at the waitress. when you blow your stack because you are not in control on your kids or your wife or whoever now you are having problems.

 

[EasterJoy]

I think you getting at the heart of it now. having a beer after work is porbably not a problem. having a glass of X with dinner or with the guys is probably not a problem either. but when you open the bottle with the intent of drinking till you can’t see straight. when you get tipsy and start in at the waitress. when you blow your stack because you are not in control on your kids or your wife or whoever now you are having problems.

Yes!

 

[JMBNH]

Also, I don’t believe for most people today that smoking is a venial sin. I believe that it is a mortal sin against the 5th Commandment, Thou shalt not kill. People today know that smoking kills. 30 years ago they didn’t know that with the same certainty so it wasn’t as serious a sin. (Mortal sin requires grave matter, knowledge, and lack of extenuating circumstances.)

If those grounds make it a mortal sin then eating fatty food or putting too much salt on your food are mortal sins too as they’ll kill you just as much. The biggest problem with smoking is not so much the health effects as the addictiveness and it being a nad use of money

 

[sawman]

I think the answer to the OP point, is- you know. That’s if your concience hasn’t been comprimised.

 

[EasterJoy]

If those grounds make it a mortal sin then eating fatty food or putting too much salt on your food are mortal sins too as they’ll kill you just as much. The biggest problem with smoking is not so much the health effects as the addictiveness and it being a nad use of money

There was a time when gluttony was recognized as a deadly sin, yes. I don’t always keep up on my reading, but I don’t think they changed that.

Also, remember that there is what CS Lewis called the gluttony of delicacy, in addition to the gluttony of excess. By the gluttony of delicacy, we enslave ourselves to having food with certain quality, and get put out if we don’t get it. It isn’t quantity that matters. It is the degree to which the soul is enslaved to the demands of the palate, that duties are neglected, or that other damage is done to persons for the sole purpose of personal pleasure.

 

[royal_archer]

I believe you are quoting drunkeness out of context. It was referring to driving under the influence. It was not referring to being drunk.

“2290 The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others’ safety on the road, at sea, or in the air.”

I believe drunkeness is addressed twice from two different angles the first being abuse of alcohol and the second being related to drunkeness putting others at risk.

I believe that the two of these allow room for getting drunk and not being a mortal sin. That situation being if on a rare occasion larger amounts of alcohol are consumed in a safe manner. This is because I interpret alcohol abuse to be the frequent or repeated use of the intoxicating effects of alcohol. I believe it is worse to get a “Buzz” every night or every weekend than to get “drunk” once a year.

Of course the definition of “drunk” is a variable. You can have a few drinks and have imparement of judgement but still be legal to drive and able to walk. You can drink more and fail a breathalizer but still walk and talk and retain much of your mental capacity. A few more drinks and you will see physical functions impaired. A few more and get pass out drunk.

My deffinition of drunk is when your ability to function is impaired by alcohol with the criteria being dependent on what you are doing as opposed to pure blood alcohol count. Two drinks then driving is bad but four and sitting on the couch watching the big game with friends not as bad.

 

[EasterJoy]

“2290 The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others’ safety on the road, at sea, or in the air.”

I believe drunkeness is addressed twice from two different angles the first being abuse of alcohol and the second being related to drunkeness putting others at risk.

I believe that the two of these allow room for getting drunk and not being a mortal sin. That situation being if on a rare occasion larger amounts of alcohol are consumed in a safe manner. This is because I interpret alcohol abuse to be the frequent or repeated use of the intoxicating effects of alcohol. I believe it is worse to get a “Buzz” every night or every weekend than to get “drunk” once a year.

Of course the definition of “drunk” is a variable. You can have a few drinks and have imparement of judgement but still be legal to drive and able to walk. You can drink more and fail a breathalizer but still walk and talk and retain much of your mental capacity. A few more drinks and you will see physical functions impaired. A few more and get pass out drunk.

My deffinition of drunk is when your ability to function is impaired by alcohol with the criteria being dependent on what you are doing as opposed to pure blood alcohol count. Two drinks then driving is bad but four and sitting on the couch watching the big game with friends not as bad.

OK, but drinking to moderation is preferable to either, right? I mean, why not ask what is a legitimate pleasure, rather than asking how much sin we can “get by with”, right?

 

[royal_archer]

OK, but drinking to moderation is preferable to either, right? I mean, why not ask what is a legitimate pleasure, rather than asking how much sin we can “get by with”, right?

Of course. I was more addressing those who frequently drink in heavy amounts but not to the point they would consider themselves “drunk”. I would consider this continual drinking to be much worse than an occasional heavier drinking.

 

[EasterJoy]

Of course. I was more addressing those who frequently drink in heavy amounts but not to the point they would consider themselves “drunk”. I would consider this continual drinking to be much worse than an occasional heavier drinking.

From a health standpoint, consumption of, for instance, the equivalent of 4 oz of wine for women and somewhat more for men on a daily basis is actually beneficial to the health. Saving up your daily 4 oz so that you can have 64 oz every two weeks is bad for you.

Drinking beyond that which is beneficial to the health should be infrequent and not a whole lot more than what is beneficial to the health. If you’re drinking to get “the buzz”, you’re getting enough to start harming you. It is kind of silly to argue over which kind of overconsumption is best.

 

[royal_archer]

From a health standpoint, consumption of, for instance, the equivalent of 4 oz of wine for women and somewhat more for men on a daily basis is actually beneficial to the health. Saving up your daily 4 oz so that you can have 64 oz every two weeks is bad for you.

Drinking beyond that which is beneficial to the health should be infrequent and not a whole lot more than what is beneficial to the health. If you’re drinking to get “the buzz”, you’re getting enough to start harming you. It is kind of silly to argue over which kind of overconsumption is best.

Agreed on the 4oz daily vs 64oz every two weeks. But what about 16oz eery two weeks vs 12 daily?

Also I was speaking from a diferent angle you are pointing out the similarity of the negative medical effects of alcohol. While I was refering to the dependency issues. Drinking till you feel the effect every night is a sign of depency to me while an occasional consumption to excess within a controled situation does not have the same dependence implications.